Opinion
By Chukwudi George Ozalla
“No political party is greater than the Constitution, the people or the conscience of the person elected.” – Ozalla CG
Don’t be deceived. A person can be a card-carrying member of a political party and still decide not to vote for that party in an election, for whatever reason or reasons best known to the member. Party membership does not automatically translate into electoral support. A citizen may belong to a political party, work for the party, contribute to its growth and still, on election day, make a different choice. That is democracy. That is also the freedom of conscience.
Political parties therefore need to be careful about how they treat their members, particularly those who have remained loyal and supportive over the years and those who have contributed to the growth of the party. When such members are treated with disdain, ignored or made to feel that their contributions no longer matter, the party should not be surprised when some of them decide to act differently at the ballot box. The party may call it anti-party activity, but the member may simply see it as a personal decision.
There have been situations in which party primaries were either not properly conducted or aspirants felt that they had been deliberately shortchanged. There are also situations where tickets appeared to have been reserved for candidates favoured by the leadership, even where such candidates did not enjoy the support of a large section of party members. When people are pushed aside in this manner, it is unrealistic to expect all of them to remain enthusiastic about defending the party’s candidate during the general election.
This is where political parties sometimes overrate themselves. They forget that the people who carry their cards are human beings with their own judgments, interests, disappointments and convictions. A party cannot demand absolute loyalty from its members while treating those same members as though their opinions do not count or while failing to deliver good governance.
The problem does not stop there. We have also seen what happens after politicians win elections. Some enter office and suddenly begin to behave as though they have been given a permanent lease on power. Four years, in their minds, becomes four years without end. They begin to look down on the people who voted for them and even on those who helped them get there. They become difficult to reach, surrounded by people who tell them only what they want to hear, while ordinary citizens who once had access to them are pushed further away.
Public office should not make a person arrogant. It should make an elected official more conscious of the responsibility placed on their shoulders. An elected official should remember that the office belongs to the people and that the mandate has a time limit. The Constitution does not give anybody four years to become a different class of human being.
True leadership should not create a gap between the leader and the people. It should bridge that gap. A good leader should be able to sit with the people, listen to criticism, recognise mistakes and understand that holding an office does not make anyone superior to those outside the office.
Unfortunately, the opposite is often the case in our politics. The moment some politicians get into office, they begin to treat criticism as an insult and disagreement as disloyalty. Party members who once stood beside them become irrelevant unless they are useful for the next election. Those who ask questions are labelled enemies, while those who praise everything the leader does are moved closer to power. That kind of politics eventually weakens both the party and the government.
I do not believe, and will never believe, that a political party is supreme over the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and, by extension, the good and just conscience of an elected office holder, regardless of the platform on which that person was elected.
Section 1 of the Constitution makes it clear that the Constitution is supreme and that any law or action inconsistent with it is void to the extent of that inconsistency. Section 40 guarantees the right of citizens to freely associate, including the right to belong to a political party. Section 223 requires political parties to have constitutions and rules that provide for the periodic election of their principal officers and governing bodies on a democratic basis.
These provisions matter because a political party is part of the democratic process; it is not above the democratic process. A party provides the platform through which a candidate may contest an election, but it does not own the person elected. It does not own their conscience. It does not own the people they represent. And it certainly does not replace the Constitution.
An elected representative has a responsibility to the people and to the Constitution. Party loyalty is important, but there must be a point at which conscience, justice and public interest are allowed to speak.
The opposition parties also have a lot to answer for. True democracy needs a strong and serious opposition. A government that knows there is a credible alternative waiting for the electorate is more likely to pay attention to its actions. But opposition parties in Nigeria have too often allowed internal disagreements, personal ambitions and leadership struggles to consume them.
A party that wants to replace a ruling party must first convince the public that it can govern better. It cannot spend all its time fighting over positions and structures and then expect voters to hand it power simply because they are tired of the ruling party.
There is also an irony in our politics. Some opposition parties that spend years condemning the excesses of ruling parties become little different when they eventually get into power. Those who once complained about imposition, exclusion and lack of internal democracy sometimes adopt the same methods when they acquire control. The problem, therefore, is bigger than one political party. It is a problem of political culture in Nigeria.
Our electoral laws have also left room for political actors to exploit gaps in the system. The Electoral Act provides rules for party primaries, nomination, withdrawal, substitution, election conduct and the transmission of results, among other matters. But politicians have repeatedly shown that where there is a gap in the law, somebody will look for a way to use it to their advantage.
This is one of the weaknesses of our electoral system. We continue to improve the law, but the people operating the system also continue to find ways around it. Sometimes the battle is not about whether the law is clear but about how far somebody can stretch its provisions without technically breaking them. No electoral law can completely cure bad political behaviour.
The electorate must therefore accept some responsibility. Politicians do not emerge from another planet. They come from among us. Some voters sell their votes on the flimsy excuse of hardship or hunger. Some support candidates because of money or immediate personal benefits. Others vote according to ethnic, religious or sectional considerations without asking whether the person they are supporting is competent, honest or capable of governing well. We cannot continue to complain about bad leadership while rewarding the same behaviour that produces it.
This brings me to a point associated with the late United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The argument is that good societies are not built by good laws alone. They depend heavily on the character and conduct of the people who live under those laws. The law has its place, but expecting the law to do the work that good behaviour should do is to ask too much of the law.
That is very relevant to Nigeria. We can continue to amend the Electoral Act. We can introduce new technology and improve the procedures for conducting elections. We can make provisions for electronic transmission of results and strengthen the rules governing party primaries. But if political actors remain determined to exploit every weakness they find, and if voters remain willing to compromise their conscience, the problem will continue. The law can punish wrongdoing, but it cannot put honesty into a person’s heart or force a party leader to treat every aspirant fairly. It can regulate elections, but it cannot make a politician respect the people who elected them.
Political parties should therefore stop behaving as though membership is a permanent guarantee of electoral support or victory. They should respect their members, conduct credible internal processes and understand that a disappointed party member still has a conscience, a circle of people he or she can influence and a ballot.
Elected officials should also remember that power is temporary. Four years is not forever. The people who are ignored today will still be there when the politician needs their support or votes tomorrow. More importantly, the office holder will eventually leave office and return to ordinary life. Some may have got there by chance, but after getting there, they have a responsibility to grow into the office, prove themselves and earn public acceptance.
Leadership should not create a wall between the person elected and the people who elected them. It should bring them closer. A leader who is afraid of ordinary people, criticism or honest disagreement has already begun to lose touch with the reason they were elected in the first place.
The ruling party has no obligation to behave like an opposition party simply because the opposition has failed to put its house in order. But the ruling party has an obligation to govern responsibly, respect the Constitution and remember that winning an election is not a licence to maltreat citizens.
The opposition, on its part, must stop expecting power to fall into its hands through the weakness of the ruling party. It must build itself, settle its internal quarrels, respect its own members and present credible candidates. The electorate must also rise to the occasion.
At the end of the day, political parties are associations of people. They are not gods. They can make mistakes, get carried away by power, become arrogant and lose touch with the people who built them. But the people have the final instrument in their hands: the ballot. A political party may control its structure, its ticket and even its campaign machinery, but it cannot permanently control the conscience of every member.
That is why every political party, particularly one in power, should be careful not to overrate itself. The day it begins to believe that every member must obey, every voter must follow and every elected official must answer to the party before the Constitution and the people, it has begun to misunderstand democracy. The party exists to serve democracy, not the other way round.
